06-28-2012, 08:03 AM
If the state grew money on an infinitely expanding number of trees, all education should be totally free of charge to the recipient. But even people who believe in the value of education, who would be willing to pay higher taxes to fund it for all, would probably have to admit that health care should also, ideally, be free. And public safety, as provided for by the police, courts, and prison service. The reality is you just cannot get enough people to pay enough taxes to provide education free of charge to everyone.
So, the government has a finite amount of our money to spend, which will not cover all the education everyone could ever want.
Primary and secondary education is should be a basic right, that a state provides to all young people within it. All young people will go on to work and pay taxes (or not work and receive benefits, but the chances of that are lessened by them having an education), so it is in the state's best interests to provide free education to its young.
Tertiary education should be treated as an investment. It is not worthwhile in all cases. The benefits to the individual and to society of it should be weighed against the costs of providing it; which ought to be born by the beneficiaries in proportion. A teacher, for example, will provide a significant benefit to a society but teacher's salaries are relatively low. Teaching degrees ought to be fairly highly subsidized. A doctor will also provide significant benefit but they will earn significantly more over the course of the working life. Medical degrees ought to be subsidized but not as much. Arts degrees enrich a persons life but are of bugger all benefit to anyone else. They shouldn't be subsidized at all.
Subsidies in the form of government loans are the most appropriate in my opinion. Not much point charging up front so that people have to work a lifetime to save up enough to be able to afford to lean medicine. Let them take the course first and then pay it back over their lifetime.
I don't believe loans should be interest free. That encourages people to delay repaying them, which effectively deprives the following generations of the money. But the aim shouldn't be for the government to make money, so the interest rate should only equal the inflation rate. And repayments should be fixed at a percentage of income, skewed so that the higher the income the higher the percentage of repayment, to reflect the fact that starting salaries are mostly lower and a higher percentage of them is required to cover basic living expenses. Loans shouldn't extend beyond death though, if you die before they're repaid, they should be written off.
As for Bill'sy/Addy's point, that educational providers will abuse a loan system by hiking their rates. I agree there is a risk (certainty) of that happening. But that risk is also there if the state simply pays for everything without requiring students to repay; or if the state doesn't provide any funding and requires students to obtain private loans. And if the state were to take on the role of providing the education (ie. no private education providers) then state's are notoriously inefficient at service provision. In short, if you want to use such terminology, a student loan system is the least dangerous solution to the challenge of funding higher education.
So, the government has a finite amount of our money to spend, which will not cover all the education everyone could ever want.
Primary and secondary education is should be a basic right, that a state provides to all young people within it. All young people will go on to work and pay taxes (or not work and receive benefits, but the chances of that are lessened by them having an education), so it is in the state's best interests to provide free education to its young.
Tertiary education should be treated as an investment. It is not worthwhile in all cases. The benefits to the individual and to society of it should be weighed against the costs of providing it; which ought to be born by the beneficiaries in proportion. A teacher, for example, will provide a significant benefit to a society but teacher's salaries are relatively low. Teaching degrees ought to be fairly highly subsidized. A doctor will also provide significant benefit but they will earn significantly more over the course of the working life. Medical degrees ought to be subsidized but not as much. Arts degrees enrich a persons life but are of bugger all benefit to anyone else. They shouldn't be subsidized at all.
Subsidies in the form of government loans are the most appropriate in my opinion. Not much point charging up front so that people have to work a lifetime to save up enough to be able to afford to lean medicine. Let them take the course first and then pay it back over their lifetime.
I don't believe loans should be interest free. That encourages people to delay repaying them, which effectively deprives the following generations of the money. But the aim shouldn't be for the government to make money, so the interest rate should only equal the inflation rate. And repayments should be fixed at a percentage of income, skewed so that the higher the income the higher the percentage of repayment, to reflect the fact that starting salaries are mostly lower and a higher percentage of them is required to cover basic living expenses. Loans shouldn't extend beyond death though, if you die before they're repaid, they should be written off.
As for Bill'sy/Addy's point, that educational providers will abuse a loan system by hiking their rates. I agree there is a risk (certainty) of that happening. But that risk is also there if the state simply pays for everything without requiring students to repay; or if the state doesn't provide any funding and requires students to obtain private loans. And if the state were to take on the role of providing the education (ie. no private education providers) then state's are notoriously inefficient at service provision. In short, if you want to use such terminology, a student loan system is the least dangerous solution to the challenge of funding higher education.
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."